Cessna Over DC -- NASA Form?

He has to face all charges maid possible
by the Patriot Act et al (- terrorism).

Mens rea?

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

think one could argue that if they'd been shot
down over DC, it would've adversely affected
the safety of people on the ground.

Agreed. But that isn't air commerce or transportation.

I see your point, but I think it's plausible to construe the safety of air
transportation to include the safety of those on whom a plane might fall,
the safety of the (non-pilot) passenger, and even the safety of the PIC
himself.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

If they file a NASA form, will it save their tickets?


According to the ASRS immunity policy
(http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm), if they file ASRS forms in a
timely manner, and if their violation was inadvertent, and if they haven't
been found to have committed another FAR violation within the past five
years, then no civil penalty or certificate suspension can be imposed. (I
doubt that a student pilot flying with his CFI could be found to have
violated the FARs by getting lost, in any event.)

There is nothing that's going to stop them from at least a 30 day
suspension. There is NO way around this in the DC airspace
viloations (most of which don't cause the "sky is falling"
evacuation that attract news coverage).

Gary Drescher wrote:


Do you know if he filed the form? Did he have any other violations in the
previous five years?

I can guarantee you that the "emergency" rules have been invoked to
avoid any "get out of jail free cards." Any pilot that violates
DC airspace will get at last 30 days suspension.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gary Drescher wrote:

Do you know if he filed the form? Did he have any other violations in the
previous five years?

I can guarantee you that the "emergency" rules have been invoked to avoid
any "get out of jail free cards." Any pilot that violates
DC airspace will get at last 30 days suspension.

I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were not
binding.

There've been many DC ADIZ violations. Are you aware of any instance in
which a pilot met the ASRS immunity conditions, but the promised immunity
was denied?

--Gary

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gary Drescher wrote:
According to the ASRS immunity policy
(http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm), if they file ASRS forms in a
timely manner, and if their violation was inadvertent, and if they
haven't been found to have committed another FAR violation within the
past five years, then no civil penalty or certificate suspension can be
imposed. (I doubt that a student pilot flying with his CFI could be found
to have violated the FARs by getting lost, in any event.)

There is nothing that's going to stop them from at least a 30 day
suspension. There is NO way around this in the DC airspace
viloations (most of which don't cause the "sky is falling"
evacuation that attract news coverage).

See my reply to your same point elsewhere in this thread.

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:
I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were not
binding.


You don't see how the government could elect to not follow its own
rules? Seems to me that's most of what the government does. The FAA in
particular has a long history of either ignoring its own rules, or
conveniently redefining them to suit the moment.



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:
I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were
not
binding.

You don't see how the government could elect to not follow its own
rules? Seems to me that's most of what the government does. The FAA in
particular has a long history of either ignoring its own rules, or
conveniently redefining them to suit the moment.

I've read several cases that are popularly regarded as showing the FAA
ignoring its own rules, but on close examination, I don't think that's what
happened. In any case, abrogating an explicit promise of immunity would be
an *extreme* violation of due process. I am unaware of any precedent for
that, nor has anyone here cited one.

--Gary

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
I'm just saying that there need to be consequences, not that those
consequences have to come from the FAA.

It's not clear where else they could come from, though (except in terms of
embarrassment, as you mention). Accidentally busting an ADIZ is not a crime,
as far as I'm aware; the FBI has already announced that there are no
criminal charges to be pressed.

The reason people
violate the ADIZ and prohibited areas, and bust airspace, and run out of
fuel, is due to poor planning and/or judgment on the part of the pilots,

The reports so far suggest that the pilot did plan to avoid the ADIZ, so his
planning was not necessarily inadequate. Looks like he just got lost. What
was probably lacking was his navigational skill, though even that isn't
certain--being highly skilled makes elementary errors unlikely, but not
impossible.

--Gary

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert wrote:

He has to face all
charges maid possible by the Patriot Act et al (- terrorism).
^^^^^
sorry for my typo ... *arggl*, to late to supersede.


Well, I may be a tad unfair, but frankly, I hope they carry him off to
Gitmo yesterday...


only unfair? to lose your civil rights? guilty unless proven unguilty? or
what? *phew*


#m
--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

The patriot act (a misnomer if there ever was one) says you are guilty and
have no chance to prove you are innocent.